I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 0 7 5 6 - S CT

T U N IC A C O U N T Y , M ISS ISS IP P I A N D C A L V IN H A M P , S R . , IN D IV ID U A L L Y A N D IN H IS OFFICI AL C APA CI TY A SS

HERI FF OF TUNICA CO UN TY
v. THE HAM

PTON COM

PANY NAT

IONAL S URETY, LLC, A M

I SS I SS I PPI LI M I TED LI ABI LI TY COM PANY; J AM ESDEAN, AN I

NDI VI DUAL AND J AM ESHAM

PTON G ARDNER, AN I NDI VI DUAL
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 14/ 2008 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. CH AR LES E
. W EBSTER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: TUNI CA COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: J OH N S. HI LL STEP HEN P. SP ENC ER AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : W I L L I AM B. RY AN J AM ES D. HARPE R NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 05/ 07/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , L A M A R A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s a ppeal i nvol ves a di s put e betw een a bai l
- bondi ng company and i t s agentand t he
s her i f f of T uni ca C ou nty. T he quest i on pr es ent ed i s w hethera county s her i f f has t he

### “‘Pro fession al bail ag ent’ mean s anyind ividual who shall furnishbail, actin g as a 1 

### li ce nse d per sona l s ure ty a gent or a s a li ce nse d l im it ed sur ety a gent r epr es enting an ins ure r as def ine d by thi s c hapt er [, ] ” not inc luding an indivi dualwho ac ts as a pe rs onalsur ety wher e no com pens ation i s c harged or

re ce ive d. Mi ss . CodeAnn. § 83- 39-1( d) ( Rev. 1999).

“‘ Lim it ed s ure ty a gent ’ m eans any indi vidua l who i s a ppoint ed by an ins ure r by 2 

### power of att orne y to e xec uteor c ounte rs ign ba ilbonds in conne ction wi th judicial proc ee dings , and who is duly l ic ens ed by the c omm is si oner to r epr es ent

suc h ins ure r f

or the re stri ct ed l ine s of

bai l, fi del it

y and s ure ty, after successf ully com ple ting a l im it ed examination by t

he departm ent

for the re stri ct ed lines of busine ss .”Mis s. Code Ann. § 83- 39-1( g) ( Rev. 1999). Gardner is thegene ra l partner

and s oleme mbe r of theLLC, whose off ic e is loc at ed 3 

### in De catur , MS. 2 author i t y t o r ef

us e t o acc eptbonds w r i t t en by a pr of es s i onal bond agent , w ho i s l i cens ed as a l i m i t ed s ur ety agentw i t h t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof I ns ur ance . T he tr i al cour tf ound t hatt he s her i f

f di d nothave s uch di s cr et i on and gr ant ed both decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef f ort he bonds m an. Fi ndi ng err or , w e r ever s e. F ACT UAL HI S TORY ¶2. Jam es H am pton G ar dner i s a pr of es s i onal bond agent , l i cens ed and qual i f i ed as a 1 l i m i t ed surety agent w i t h t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof I ns ur ance . G ar dnerow ns and 2 oper at es a bai l
- bondi ng bus i nes s undert he name of T he H ampt on C om pany N at i onal Sur ety, L L C (he r e i na f

t e r“ H a mpt on Co. ” ) , do i ng bu s i ne s s i n a pp r ox i mat e l y o ne - t hi r d of M i s s i s s i ppi ’ s ei ght y- t w o count i es , i ncl udi ng T uni ca Count y. J ames D ean i s one of t hi r t y- 3 f i ve age nt s empl oyed on a c ont r actual bas i s by H ampt on C o. D ean, a r es i dentof T uni ca

### “Sol ic iting bail agent’ me ans any pe rs on who, a s an age nt or em ploye e of a 4 

### pro fession al bail ag ent, o r as an in dep end ent co ntracto r, fo r comp ensatio n o r oth erwise, sh all solicit, advertise o r activelyseek b ail bo ndbu siness f o r o r o n b ehalf o f a pro fession al bail age nt. ” Mi ss . CodeAnn. § 83- 39-1( e) (Re v. 1999)
. D ur i ng t he s ame t i m e, H amp re m oved s ever al ot her bo nd agent s and bondi ng 5 compani es f

r om t he bai l
- bondi ng ros t erf ors i m i l arr eas ons . T hos e compani es w er e r etur ned to th e ro ste r a fte r th e ir d e fe n d a n ts a p p e a re d in c o u rt a n d th e c irc u it cle rk o f T u n ica C o u n ty pr ovi ded not i ce of

s uch t o t he s her i f

f’ s of f i ce. 

### 3 C ount y, i s l i cens ed w i t h t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof I ns ur ance . H ampt on C o. empl oyed D ean a s i t s onl y s ol i ci t i ng bai l agent i n T uni ca Count y. 4 ¶3. C alvin H am p, S r. , w as el ect ed sheri ff of T un i ca C ou nty i n 20 04 , aft er serving as a deputy w i t h t he Tuni ca Count y S heri f f’ s D epart m ents i nce 1994. O n February 15, 2005, H amp, a ct i ng i n hi s c apac i t y a s s her i f f , r emoved H ampt on Co. a nd D ean f r om T uni ca Co u n t y ’ s b a i l
- b o n d i n g r o s t e r , p r o h i b i t i n g b o t h f r o m wr i t i n g b o n d s i n Tu n i c a Co u n t y . Ha mp t es t i f i ed thathe t ook t hi s a ct i on a f t err ece i vi ng a r epor tf

r om the ci r cui tc our tj udge, w hi ch sta ted th a t H a m p to n C o . w a s in a rre a rs o n b o n d s b e c a u se th re e b o n d e d c rim in a l d e fe n d a n ts f ai l ed t o a ppearf

ora r r ai gnm entw hen s chedul ed. H amp furt hert es t i f i ed thathe s us pended bot h H ampt on C o. ’ s and D ean’ s abi l i t y t o w r i t e bonds i n T uni ca Count y, pendi ng not i ce of ei t her the ap pearance o f the d efendan t s or paym ent of t he b on ds. 5 ¶4. A l t hough t he t hr ee def endant s f ai l ed t o appea r f

or arr ai gnm ent w hen s chedul ed, t hey
s ubs equent l y appea r ed bef or e t he cour t ; Sharr y Per ki ns and C al vi n Fr ankl i n w er e arr ai gned on February 17, 2005, and V al er i e J ohns on w as arr ai gned on M ar ch 30, 2005. H amp, how ever , t es t i f

i ed t hathe w as notnot i f i ed of thei ra ppear ance i n c our t , a nd con seque nt l y,

### Mississip pi C od e Sectio n 8 3-3 9-2 7(b ) makes it unlaw ful fo r a l ic en se d b ail 6 

### bondsm an t o “[ p] ay a

fe e or r ebateor gi ve or prom is e to giveanything of value t o a j ai le r, poli ce man, pe ac e of

fi ce r, cl er k, deputy c le rk, any oth er em ploye e of any c ourt , di stri ct attor ney or any of his empl oyee s or any pe rs on who has power to arr es t or

to hol d any pe rs on in cu stody.” 4 H ampt on C o. and D ean w er e notre tur ned t o t he bai l
- bondi ng ros t er . G ar dnert es t i f i ed that he w as unabl e t o geti n t ouch w i t h t he s her i f f by phone, a nd he i ns t ruct ed D ean t o ens ur e that H ampt on C o. and D ean w er e r etur ned t o t he bai l
- bondi ng r os t er . D ean t es t i f i ed thathe had
m ade s ever al at t empt s t o s peak w i t h H amp, butH amp had been unava i l abl e ea ch t i m e. ¶5. A f

t erm edi at i on of

thi s a ct i on, H amp r eturned H ampt on Co. t o t he bai l
- bondi ng r os t er in T u n ica C o u n ty in 2 0 0 6 . A c c o rd in g to H a m p , D e a n w a s n o t re tu rn e d to th e ro ste r d u e to
a s epar at e and unr el at ed i nci dent
. H amp l earned that , dur i ng February of 2005, D ean ha d loan ed m o n ey to W ay n e G o o d en , a ja iler e m p loy ed b y the T u n ica C o u n ty S h eriff’s D epart m ent . D ean a dm i t t ed i n hi s depos i t i on t hathe had made the l oan and pr evi ous l y had
m ade s i m i l arl oans t o G oo de n, w hi c h woul d c on s t i tut e vi ol a t i on s of M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 8 3
- 3 9
- 2 7
. Ha mp t e s t i f

i e d th a tb e c a u s e o f

t h i s v i o l a t i o n , h e c h o s e n o tt o r e tu r n De a n ’ s n a me 6 to the b ail -bo n d ing ro ster for the co u n ty. H am p testi fi ed that h is pred ec esso rs as sh eriff w ere j ai l ed bec aus e of

i m pr operbondi ng pr ocedur es and exc hanges of m oney betw een bondi ng
a g e n ts a n d th e sh e riff’s d e p a rtm e n t. T h is h isto ry n e c e ss itate d th a t H a m p fo rm u late c e rta in g u idelines , inclu d ing h is po li cy o f rem o v ing n am es fro m the b ail -bo n d ing roster.

### Th e trial court foundthat th e issue o f wheth er Hamp or h is staff directedinmates to 7 

### othe r bonding com

pani es was a que stion of fa ct . Noting t

hat the rewas no evi dentiary hearing and no proof wa s pr es ent ed that would subs tanti at e thecla im , the tri alcourt de nie d the relief requested . Th is issue w as no t raised o n ap peal to this C ourt. Noting that ne ither th e moti on to di sm is s nor thehearing addr es se d thecl ai ms for 8 

### inj unctiveand de cl ar at ory r el ie f, the tria l court al lowe d the parti es t en days ( af te r the order granting themotion t o dismiss mone tary dama ges ) t o “m akethe ir wis hes known to the court”re gard ing thos e i ss ues . Ea ch party subs eque ntly subm itte d thr eele tt er s t o thetria l court on t he i ss ues . No he aring wa s r eque st ed by e it her party pri or t o thetria l c ourt ’s rul ing. Ham pton Co. , De an, and Gardne r a ls o fi le d sui t a gainst thedef endants in t

he U. S. 9 

### District C ourt for th e No rthernDistrict o f Missi ss ip p i, c laiming vio lation s of due p rocess, equa l prote ction, and the Firs t Ame ndme nt. On a ppea l, theFif

th Circ uit af firm ed s umm ar

y judgm ent as to Ham

p’s quali fi ed i mm

unit y and r eve rs ed and re manded s umm ar y judgm ent 5 P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶6. H ampt on C o. and D ean f i l ed s ui t agai ns t T uni ca C ount y and H amp, al l egi ng t hatt he sh e riff u n law fu lly d ire c ted in m a tes a w a y fro m th e ir b o n d in g c o m p a n y a n d u n law fu lly 7 pr ohi bi t ed them fr om w r i t i ng bonds i n T uni ca Count y. H ampt on C o. and D ean s ought
co m p en sato ry a n d p u n it ive d am ag es, as w ell as d ec laratory an d injun cti v e re li ef. ¶7. T uni ca C ou nty an d H amp f i l ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s purs uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi R ul e of C i vi l P roce dur e 12( b) ( 6)
. H ampt on C o. and D ean r es ponded t o t he mot i on and f i l ed an
am en d ed co m p lai n t, ad d ing G ard n er a s a p lai n ti ff. T h e tri al co u rt g ra n ted the sh eriff’s
m ot i on t o di s m i s s as i tr el at ed t o t he cl ai m f orm onet ary damages
. Subs equent l y, t he tr i al 8
cour tgr ant ed t he cl ai m s f ordecl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef , hol di ng t hatH amp l acke d
a u th o rity u n d e r M iss iss ip p i l a w to p ro h ib it H a m p to n C o . a n d D e a n fro m w ritin g b o n d s in T u n ica C o u n ty . T u n ica C o u n ty an d H a m p n o w a p p e a l, as se rtin g th a t th e trial c o u rt e rre d in g ran ti n g d ec laratory an d injun cti v e re li ef. 9

### on theequa l prote ction and Fir st Ame ndme nt c la im s. The Fi fth C ircuit based i ts dec is ion to rev erse onthe state co urt’s fin din g th at Hamp didno t hav e the autho rity to pro hib it Hamp tonCo ., Dean , andGardner fro m writin g an d so liciting bo nd s in T un ica Co unty, while noting that this C ourt ’s im pending conc lus ion woul d ultim at ely controlin t he f utur e. Hampton Co. Nat’

l Suret y LLC v . Tunica Count

y Mi ss issi ppi , 543 F. 3d 221 (5th Cir
. 2008). SeeHutchin son ’s Mississip pi C od e, 18 48 , ch . 2 8, art. 3 (1 3). O rigin ally p assed in

10 

### 1822, the st at

utehas bee n am ende d se ver alti me s, inc luding 1880, 1892, and m ost re ce ntly, 1995. 6 S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶8. T hi s C our templ oys a de novo s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w w h e n r e v i e wi n g q u e s t i o n s o f l a w, in c lu d in g m o tio n s fo r d e c la ra to ry ju d g m e n t. S. C . I ns. Co. v. K

eym on , 974 So. 2d 226, 229 ( M i s s . 2008) ( ci t i ng P re -P a id L e g a l S e rv s. v . B a ttle , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 7 9 , 8 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 )). A N A L Y S IS ¶9
. T h is ca se p rese n ts, a s a m att er o f fi rstim p ression , the issu e o f w h ethe r a c o u n ty sh eriff h a s a n y d isc re tio n to ac c e p t or re fu se a b a il b o n d ten d e re d b y a d u ly lice n se d lim ited su re ty
a g e n t. ¶10. T hi s C our tha s l ong r ecogni zed t hatthe s her i f f i s t he “chi ef l aw exec ut i ve of f i cerof hi s county. ” S im m o n s v . S ta te , 1 6 5 M is s . 7 3 2 , 7 4 6 , 1 4 1 S o . 2 8 8 (1 9 3 2 ). T h e sh e riffs o f th is
s t at e tr adi t i onal l y have ha d br oad and va r i ed dut i es . M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 19- 25- 67,
or i gi nal l y enac t ed i n 1822 , s et s f or t h s om e of

t hos e dut i es r el at i ve t o t he ca s e s ub j udi ce : 10 I ts hal l be the duty of

every s her i f

f t o keep the pea ce w i t hi n hi s county, by caus i ng al l of

f ender s i n hi s vi ew t o ent eri nt o bonds , w i t h s ur et i es , f orkeepi ng t he pea ce a nd f

orappea r i ng atthe nextc i r cui tc our t , a nd by c om m i t t i ng s uch o ffe n d e rs in c a se o f re fu sa l. H e sh a ll c e rtify a n d re tu rn s a id b o n d s to th e c o u rt.

. . . H e sh a ll p u rs u e , a p p re h e n d , an d c o m m it t o jail a ll p e rso n s c h a rg e d w ith

### Mis si ss ippiCode Se ction 8 3 -39 -15 i s pa rtof th e P rofe ssion al B ail B o n d A c t, 11 enac t ed i n 1968 and codi f i ed atSect i on 83- 39- 1 et s eq . , and pr ovi des , i n per t i nentpar t : “( 1) T he depa r t m entm ay deny, s us pend, r evoke orr ef us e t o r enew , as m ay be a ppr opr i at e, t he lice n se o f an y p e rso n e n g a g e d in th e b u sin e ss o f p ro fe ss io n a l b a il ag e n t, so licitin g b a il ag e n t, o r ba il en forc em en t age n t . . . . ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 8 3 -39 -15 (R ev . 1 9 9 9 ). 

### 7 tr e a s o n , fe lo n y , o r o th e r c ri m e s . He m ay take bonds , w i th good and s uf f i ci ent s ur et i es , of

any per s on w hom he may arr es tw i t h orw i t houta w arr antf orany f e l o n y t h a ti s b a i l a b l e a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 9 -25 -67 (R ev . 2 0 0 3 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶11. Sher i f

f H amp ar gues t hatt hi s st atut e m and at es a sher i f f’ s re s pons i bi l i t y t o keep the p e a c e w ith in h is c o u n ty , “ b y c a u s in g a ll o ff e n d e rs . . . to e n te r i n to b o n d s , w ith su re tie s . . . f o ra p p e a r i n g a tth e n e x tc i r c u i tc o u r t . ” M i s s Co d e An n . § 1 9
- 2 5
- 6 7 ( Re v . 2 0 0 3 )
. Ha mp
ar gues t hatt he us e of

t he perm i s s i ve t erm “may” in th is s ta tu te , i
. e. “ h e m a y ta k e b o n d s ,”
c lea rly in d ica tes th a t th e M iss iss ip p i L e g isla tu re in ten d e d to g iv e th e sh e riff d isc re tio n in d e c id in g w h e th e r to a c c e p t o r r e jec t a b o n d , as n e c e ss a ry , to m a in tain th e p e a c e a n d to
c o n tro l th e a d m in istra tio n o f h is ja il. ¶12. O n t he otherh and , H am pton C o. an d D ean a s s er tt hatt he s her i f f does not have author i t y t o r ej ecta bond t ender ed by a l i censed pr of es s i onal bai l
- bondi ng agent , s i nce M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 83- 39- 15 e xpr es s l y gr ant s e xcl us i ve author i t y t o t he M i s s i s s i ppi 11 D epart m entof

I ns ur ance t o deny, s us pend, orr evoke a li cense or t o ot herw i s e di s ci pl i ne a bai l bonds m an. H ampt on C o. and D ean ther ef or e cont end t hatt he s her i f f’ s onl y r ecour s e,
w hen conf

r ont ed w i t h t he mi s conductof a l i m i t ed sur ety agent , i s t o f i l e a c om pl ai ntw i t h t he D e p a rtm e n t o f In su ra n c e a n d a w a it a h e a rin g a n d a c tio n b y th e D e p a rtm e n t.

### The fi rs t portion of Mis si ss ippiCode Sect i on 95- 5- 15 

### , whichstates “It is the duty 12 

### of th e sheriff o r oth er officer havin g cu stody o f suchdefen dant, up onhis co mplian ce with theorder of

thecomm itting court

or of fi ce r, to r el ea sehim

from c ust ody” date s ba ck t o the orig inal lang uag e of the statute, enactedin 1 84 6. See Co des, H utch inso n’s 1 84 8, C h. 6 5, art. 12(2)
. Th e statute w as amend ed in18 57 to in clud e the fo llow ing lang u ag e: “andhe sh all appr ove thes ur e t i e s o n theb on d, and f or that p ur po s em ay e xam i nethe mo n oath, or take the ir aff idavit in writing, and may adm ini st er suc h oath.” SeeCode s, 1857, ch. 64, art . 288. In 1960, in order

“t o provi de and perm it

authori ze d fi del it

y and s ure ty insuranc e co mp an ie s to act throu ghtheir ag ent as surety o n b ail bo nd s,” the statute was amen dedto inc ludethephra se“e xcept adm itte d and a uthoriz ed f

ide li ty and sur ety ins urancecom pani es ac ting as sur ety.”Laws , 1960, ch. 267. 8 ¶13. H ampt on C o. and D ean a l s o ar gue t hatM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 5- 15 m andat es t hatthe she r i f

f acc eptbonds t ender ed by an a ut hor i zed f i del i t y and s ur ety company. T he st atute pr ov i des: It is th e d u ty o f th e sh e riff o r o th e r o ffic e r h a v in g c u sto d y o f su c h d e fe n d a n t, u p o n h is c o m p lian c e w ith th e o rd e r o f th e c o m m itt in g c o u rt o r o ffic e r, to r e l e a s e h i m f

r om c us t od y; and he s hal lappr ove the s ur et i es on the bond, exc ept adm i t t ed a ndau tho ri

zed f i deli t y an d suret

y i nsuran ce compa nies act i ng a s s u re ty , an d fo r th a t p u rp o se m a y e x a m in e th e m o n o a th , o r ta k e th e ir af f i davi ti n w r i t i ng, and may adm i ni s t ers uch oath. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 5- 15 (Rev. 2007) ( emphasi s added)
. I n f ur t her ance of

t hei rpos i t i on, 12 H am p ton C o . an d D ea n p o int ou t th at a sh eriff h as n o fi n an cial l iabili ty in the e v e n t o f a defaul tby a l i m i t ed suret y ag ent, ci t i ng M i ssi ssi pp i C od e S ect i on 99 -5- 19 , w hich st at es: I f any per s on, exce pta pr oper l y author i zed j ud ge, aut hor i zed t o r el eas e a cr i m i nal def

endantnegl ect s t o t ake a bai l bond, ori f t he bai l bond f

r om any c a u se is in su ffic ien t at th e tim e h e to o k a n d a p p ro v e d th e s a m e . . . h e sh a ll s t and as s peci al bai l , and j udgm ents hal l be r ender ed aga i ns thi m as s uch, exc ept w hen bond is t ender ed by a f i del i t y ori ns ur ance com

pany or profes si on al bai lag ent or i t s bail ag ent autho ri

zed by M ississi

pp i state l i cense t o a c ta s b a i ls u r e t

y . T h e p e rs o n ta k i n ga n d

a p p r o v i n ga b a i lb o n d

f r o m a fide lit y o r in su ra n c e c o m

p a ny o r p ro

fes sio n a l b a il a g e n t o r its b a il a g e n t w ith

### Mis si ss ippi Code Sec ti on 99- 5- 19 

### was am ende d in 1997 t o add the f oll owing 13 

### language :

. . . e xcept

whe n bo nd

i s t e nd e r e d bya

f i de l i ty or ins uranc e c om

panyor pro fession al bail agent o r its bail agent autho rized byMississip pi state licen se to ac t as b ail surety . Th e sheriff tak ing andapp rov ing a bail b on d fro m a fidelityor in suran ce comp anyor p rofessio nal b ail agent or its b ail agent with a validMississip pi state licen se shall b ear no finan cial liabi li tyo n th e bail bo ndin th e event of a b ail bo ndforfeiture or d efault. Miss. C od e Ann. § 99- 5- 19 

### (Re v. 2007)
. A 2004 am endm ent

to Mi ss is sippi CodeSec ti on99- 5- 19 

### s ub s t i t ut e d theword 14 

### “perso n” fo r “sheriff.” M iss. Co de A nn . § 99- 5- 19 

### (Re v. 2007)
. 9 a v a lid Miss iss ip

p i sta te lic e n se sh a ll b e a r n o fin a n c ia l li a b ili ty o n th e b a il b o n d in th e e v e n t o

f a b a il b o n d

fo rfe itu re o r d e

fa u lt. 

### Miss. C od e Ann. § 99- 5- 19 ( R ev. 2007) ( em ph asi s added)
. H ampt on C o. and D ean a r gue t hatthi s s t atut e, as amended i n 1997, w as i nt ended by the M i s s i s s i ppi L egi s l atur e t o r emove 13 any di s cr et i on t he s her i f f had i n acc ept i ng orr ej ect i ng bon ds f r om a f i del i t y i ns ur ance company. 14 ¶1 4. A sea r ch f

ound no cas es fr om t hi s Cour ta dd r e s s i ng t hi s i s s ue , a nd t he s t atut es
a d d re ss in g th e d u ties o f a sh e riff a re fe w . O u r la w is c lea r th a t th e p u rp o se o f b a il is to
s ecur e the pr es ence of

an ac cus ed att r i al , and thatr es ponsi bil i t y ul t i m at el y r es t s w i t h t he
s h e ri ff
. See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 19- 25- 67 ( R ev. 2003)
. B ot h s i des r el y on M i s si ssi ppi sta tu tes to su p p o rt th e ir a rg u m e n ts. A lth o u g h a ll o f th e sta tu tes c ited b y th e p a rties re late to t he r el evants ubj ect s of

bai l bonds , bondi ng agent s , and she r i f f s , t hey ar e f

ound i n di f

f er ent chapt er s of

ourC ode, and al t hough noti n cl earconf l i ct , ar e s ur el y ambi guous as t o t he i nt ent

### 10

of the L egis l ature. W hen st atutes are am bigu o u s a n d p o tent i al l y in confl i ct , as i n the case
s ub j udi ce , w e l ook t o t he rul es of s t atut or y cons t ruct i on f orgui dance
. ¶15. I ti s a w el l
- s et t l ed rul e of s t atut or y cons t ruct i on t hat“w hen tw o s t atut es per t ai n t o t he
s ame s ubj ect , t hey m us tbe r ead t ogetheri n l i ghtof l egi s l at i ve i nt ent . ” L enoirv. Madis on Co u n ty , 641 So. 2d 1124, 1129 ( M i s s . 1994)
. “I ti s a gene r al rul e thati n cons t rui ng s t atut es t hi s C our tw i l l notonl y i nt erpr ett he w ords used , b utw i l l cons i dert he purpos e and pol i cy
w hi ch the l egi s l atur e had i n vi ew of enac t i ng t he l aw . T he courtw i l l t hen gi ve ef f ectt o t he i nt entof the l egi s l atur e. ” State ex r el . H ood v. Madis on C ount

y ex r el . Madis on C ount

y B d. of Su pervisors , 8 7 3 S o . 2 d 8 5 , 8 8 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶16. Fol l ow i ng t he rul es of s t atut or y cons t ruct i on, r epea l of s t atut es by i m pl i cat i on i s not fa v o re d
. R o b e r t

s v . Mis s . Re

p u b li c a n P a r t

y S ta te E x e c u ti v e Co mm. , 465 So. 2d 1050, 1051 ( M i s s . 1985)
. “I n or derf ora s ubs equentactt o r epea l a f or m erone e xpr es s l y, i tmustpoi nt
o u t th e statute rep ea led w ith suffici en t ce rt ainty
. . . . A n d w h ere i n a su b seq u en t st atute the re i s no expr es s r epea l of a f or m er , t he courtw i l l n ot hol d t he f or m ert o be r epea l ed by i m pl i cat i on, unl es s t her e i s a pl ai n and unavoi dabl e r epugnanc y bet w een them. ” I d. ( quot i ng E x p a rte McIn n is , 54 So. 2d 260, 262 ( M i s s . 1910) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) )
. I f t he s ubs equent
s t atut e does notr epea l t he f or m er , each s t atut e ci t ed m us tbe gi ven ef f ect . W e have s ai d t hat “s t atut es on t he s ame s ubj ect , a l t hough i n a ppar entc onf l i ct , s houl d i f

pos s i bl e be c ons t rued i n harm on y w i t h each othert o gi ve ef f ectt o eac h. ” Mis s . G am ing C om m ’n v. I m per ial P alace of Miss. , 751 So. 2d 1025, 1029 ( M i s s . 1999) ( quot i ng R o b e rts , 465 So. 2d at1050, 1 0 5 2 (in ter n a l q u o tes o m itt e d )). T h is C o u rt h a s s tate d th a t “[i]n c o n stru in g sta tu tes , all

### 11

st atutes in p a ri m a ter ia a r e t a k e n i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a n d a l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n td e d u c e d f r o m a
cons i der at i on as a w hol e. ” Miss. G a m ing Co m m ’n , 751 So. 2 d at1029 ( quot i ng R o b e rts , 4 6 5 S o . 2 d at 10 5 2 ). ¶17. W i t h t hes e rul es of s t atut or y cons t ruct i on i n m i nd, w e addr es s t he s peci f i c s t atut es at i s s ue i n t he ca s e s ub j udi ce . M i s s i s s i pp i Code Se c t i on 1 9- 25
- 67 s t a t e s , i n l a ng uage da t i ng b a c k to 1 8 9 2 , th at th e sh eriff “ m ay take bo nd s, w i t h g oo d an d suff i ci ent s uret i es. ” M i ss. C ode A nn. § 19- 25- 67 (Rev. 2003) ( emphasi s added)
. U s i ng t he sa m e l anguage used s i nce 1 8 4 6 , M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 9 9 -5 -1 5 sta tes th a t th e sh e riff “ sh a ll appr ove t he s ur et i es on t he bond .
. . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 5- 15 ( R ev. 2007) ( emphasi s added)
. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99-5-19 r equi r es t hata per s on s hal l s t and as s peci al bai l and j udgm ents hal l be
r ender ed aga i ns thi m i f t he bond w as i ns uf

f i ci ent“att he t i m e he t ook an d a ppr oved t he
s ame. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 5- 19 (Rev. 2007) ( emphasi s added)
. T he st atut e f ur t hers t at es t hat“ [ t ] he per s on taki ng and appr ovi ng a bai l bond” f r om a f i del i t y i ns ur ance company or pr of es s i onal bai l a gents hal l be arno f i nanci al l i abi l i t y on t he bond. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 5- 1 9 (R ev . 2 0 0 3 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 1 8
. S e c tio n 1 9 -2 5 -6 7 c le a rl y v e s ts d is c re tio n in th e sh e riff “ to e n ter in to b o n d s, w ith
s ur et i es , ” pr ovi di ng t hat“he may t ake bonds w i t h good and s uf f i ci ents ur et i es . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 19- 25- 67 ( R ev. 2003). T her e i s not hi ng i n t he l at eram endment s t o t hi s or the other
r el at ed s t atut es w hi ch ca n be r ead a s an “e xpr es s r epea l ” of t hi s gr antof

di s cr et i on. ¶19
. F urther, i n co nsi deri ng al l st atutes in p a ri m a ter ia , and i n or dert o gi ve ef f ectt o eac h,
w e fin d th a t th e L e g isla tu re in ten d e d th a t th e sh e riff firs t ap p ro v e th e s u re ties , a c c o rd in g to

### Hamp tonCo . andDeanrely o n anop inio n o f a fed er al district co urt inArk ansas, 15 

### whic h found that

Arkansa s s herif

fs haveno st at

utor y authori ty t o disqua li fy bai l bonds me n or b ail-bo nd ing comp anies. Ho lt B on ding Co ., Inc., v. N icho ls , 988 F. Supp. 1232, 1235 (W. D. Ar k. 1997). Ho wev er, the ir re li anc e on the Ar

kans as ca seis mi spl ac ed, as the 12 M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n s 1 9 -25 -67 an d 9 9 -5-1 5
. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 1 9 -25 -67 (R ev . 2 0 0 3 ); M i s s . C ode A nn. § 99- 5- 15 (Rev. 2007). H ow ever , i f an adm i t t ed and author i zed f i del i t y and
su re ty in su ra n c e c o m p a n y is a c tin g a s s u re ty , th e n the sh e riff n e e d n o t i n q u ire fu rth e r a s to t he s uf f i ci ency of

the s ur ety. Secondl y, the s t atut es pr ovi de t hatonc e s ur et i es ar e appr oved, th e sh e riff “ m a y tak e b o n d s.” M iss . C o d e A n n . § 1 9 -2 5 -6 7 (R e v . 2 0 0 3 ). W e fin d th a t th is l ang uage c onf

er s l i m i t ed di s cr et i on t o t he s her i f f , as he m ay t a ke b on ds
. Furt her , t he l anguage of

s ect i on 99- 5- 19 s uppor t s t hi s f i ndi ng, i n t hati ttw i ce m ent i ons t he per s on taki ng and appr ovi ng a b a il b o n d , w ith th e firs t in sta n c e b e in g th e o rig in a l lan g u a g e o f th e sta tu te pas s ed i n 1846, and t he s econd r ef er ence t o “ t aki ng a nd appr ovi ng” bei ng added by the 1997
a m e n d m e n t. ¶20. W hi l e M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 19- 25- 67 author i zes a s her i f f t o t ake bonds , s o l ong as th ey are ac co m p an ied b y g o o d a n d su ffi cien t sure ti es, the p lai n lan g u ag e d o es n o t r eq u ir e t he s her i f f t o a cce pte very bond of

f er ed w i t h s uf

f i ci ents ur et i es . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 19- 25- 67 (R e v . 2 0 0 3 ). In sta tu to ry in terp re tat io n , th e ter m “ m a y ” in d ica tes a p e rm iss iv e ter m , n o t a
m a n d a to ry ter m , su c h a s th e ter m “ sh a ll” w o u ld in d ica te . W e in e r v . Me re dith , 943 So. 2d 6 9 2 , 6 9 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 6 ). H ad the L eg isl ature inten d ed to re q u ir e the sh eriff to ac ce p t eve ry bond t ender ed by a pr of es s i onal bai l agent , w hethera l i m i t ed orpe r s onal s ur ety a gent , t hat inten t certai n ly co u ld h av e b ee n clea rl y stat ed
. T h e statu tes stop sh o rto f req u ir ing a sh eriff 15

### govern ing A rkansa s s tatut e s pec if ic al ly provide s that

“[ p] roof that t he s ure ty i s a

li ce nse d prof es si onalbai l bonds man sha llbe de em ed suf fi ci ent proof of the s uff

ic ie ncy of thesur ety, and thesuret

y s hall be ac ce pte d by all c ourt

s in this stateor byany indiv idual authorized to ta ke ba il under

theprovi si ons of

§ 16-84- 102. Ar

k. CodeAnn. § 16-84-103 (b)( 2) ( Rev. 2003) ( em

phas is adde d). The r el evant Mi ss is sippi s tatut es cont ain no suc h mandat e. 13 t o acc eptevery bond t ender ed by a l i m i t ed s ur ety agent , and w e dec l i ne t o r ead s uch a
m andat e i nt o t he s t atut e. CO NC L US I ON ¶21. W e f

i nd t hat t he M i s s i s s i ppi L egi s l atur e i nt ended t o conf er upon t he s her i f

f , as t he “chi ef l aw exec ut i ve of

f i cerof h i s cou nty[ , ] ” l i m i t ed di s cr et i on as t o w hethert o acc eptor
re je c t a b o n d te n d e re d fo r th e re le a s e o f a n a c c u s e d
. Sim m ons , 165 M i s s . at736. O f cour s e, t he s her i f

f’ s di s cr et i on i s not unfe t t er ed, and a s her i f f m us tnotacti n an arbi t r ary or
c a p ri c io u s m a n n e r. B e c a u se w e fin d th a t th e sh e riff d o e s h a v e lim ited d isc re tio n to det erm i ne w hethert o acc eptorr ej ectbon ds t ender ed w i t hi n hi s county, w e f i nd t hatt he court ’ s gr antof

decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef w as err oneous and mustt her ef or e be
rever sed. W e make no f i ndi ng as t o w hethert he s her i f f i n t he ca s e s ub j udi ce a c t e d i n an
a rb itrar y o r c a p ric io u s m a n n e r, as th is w a s n o t th e iss u e p re se n ted to th e trial c o u rt o r th is C o u rt. ¶22. RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D. W A LL ER , C . J. , C A R LSO N , P. J. , D I C K I N SO N , R A N D O LP H , K I TC H EN S, CH AND LER AND PI ERCE, J J . , CO NCU R. GR AVES, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.